Illuminating the Sakura Web with Fluorescent Ly Emission Sebastiano - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Illuminating the Sakura Web with Fluorescent Ly α Emission Sebastiano Cantalupo In collaboration with many people, including: Cosmic Structure Formation Group at ETH, MUSE GTO Team (ETH, CRAL, Leiden, AIP, IRAP, Gottingen) J. X. Prochaska, Sakura Slug, P. Madau (UCSC), F. Arrigoni-Battaia (ESO), Joe Hennawi (UCSB), M. Haehnelt (IoA) Sebastiano Cantalupo – SakuraCLAW - Mar 2018 14/06/2007

Illuminating the Cosmic Web with Fluorescent Ly α Emission Sebastiano Cantalupo In collaboration with many people, including: Cosmic Structure Formation Group at ETH, MUSE GTO Team (ETH, CRAL, Leiden, AIP, IRAP, Gottingen) J. X. Prochaska, Sakura Slug, P. Madau (UCSC), F. Arrigoni-Battaia (ESO), Joe Hennawi (UCSB), M. Haehnelt (IoA) Sebastiano Cantalupo – SakuraCLAW - Mar 2018 14/06/2007

Talk Outline Motivation & introduction Detecting the Cosmic Web: very latest MUSE results (and some KCWI) Comparison with models Open questions/Summary Sebastiano Cantalupo – SakuraCLAW - Mar 2018 14/06/2007

We are all familiar with the “Cosmic Web”… … as seen in hundreds of simulations . How about the real universe ? How are galaxies linked to each other? What are the morphology and the small scale properties of the “Cosmic Web”? How do galaxies get their gas? What are the density and temperature of the “Circum Galactic Medium”? Direct Imaging needed Movie credits: M. Vogelsberger Sebastiano Cantalupo – SakuraCLAW - Mar 2018 14/06/2007

The Cosmic Web in fluorescent Ly α emission: expectations Simulated Ly α images at z~2.5 (20Å NB; no noise/PSF) centred on a ~10 13 M sun halo hydro-simulation (RAMSES) + Radiative Transfer ( RADAMESH , SC+12 ) QSO fluorescence Cantalupo+12 log(SB) (cgs/arcsec 2 ) -17 NB & -18 MUSE 1h MUSE medium -19 MUSE deep -20 MUSE UVB+Stars FOV +QSO UVB+Stars KCWI -21 2 4 6 2 4 6 8 8 cMpc cMpc UVB fluorescence 1) Look around bright quasars 2) “Stack” for statistical detection (Gallego, SC+2018; see How to detect it? Sofia’s poster on 10th floor) 3) Integrate for 100+ hours away from quasars Sebastiano Cantalupo – SakuraCLAW - Mar 2018 14/06/2007

Highlights from Narrow-Band imaging survey of Quasar fields at z~2.3 Compact fluorescent emitters without CGM in emission around a bright galaxy stellar counterparts (“Dark galaxies”) SC+12, see also Marino, SC+18 qso (3’) SC+12 Morphology and SB compatible with “cold filaments” Giant Quasar Nebulae: + other 25 QSOs (FLASHLIGHT Keck+GMOS survey; the Slug 1’ (500kpc) Cantalupo+, in prep.; Arrigoni-Battaia, SC+, 2016) main results: - Giant Nebulae (>100kpc) are rare in NB surveys (<10%) at z~2.3, only a few found so far. qso - Morphology and “kinematics” compatible with CGM/ IGM but Surface Brightness is too high for expected gas densities (see later). …then, finally, came MUSE Cantalupo+14, Nature Sebastiano Cantalupo – SakuraCLAW - Mar 2018 14/06/2007

MUSE observations of QSOs at z~3.5: 100% detection rate of giant nebulae! ~350 kpc 45” Targets: brightest radio-quiet QSOs at 3<z<4 (and two radio-loud, R1 & R2) Exposure times: 1h only total integration (“snapshot” survey) Optimally extracted pseudo-NB images with QSO PSF-subtraction obtained with CubExactor (Cantalupo in prep.) All nebulae larger than 100 kpc with various morphologies. Borisova, Cantalupo+ 2016 Sebastiano Cantalupo – SakuraCLAW - Mar 2018 14/06/2007

A 3D view of the Muse Quasar Nebula 3 (MQN03), 350kpc in size: CubExtractor (Cantalupo, in prep.) + VisIt QSO PSF and continuum subtracted cube 350kpc 2 σ ~1x10 -18 cgs/arcsec 2 10A ~ 600km/s Borisova, Cantalupo+, 2016 Sebastiano Cantalupo – SakuraCLAW - Mar 2018 14/06/2007

Latest results: hunting for the “Cosmic Web” around MQN03 data collected during 2016-2017 (1x2 mosaic, ~15h in deepest part): this image 65” is not 500kpc available in the talk online version previous 1h-deep snapshot (single pointing) Sakura Nebula? Sebastiano Cantalupo – SakuraCLAW - Mar 2018 14/06/2007

A statistical view: 2D Velocity maps of the Muse Quasar Nebulae - no clear signs of “rotation” (with some exceptions); - radio-quiet nebulae (1-17) are kinematically “narrow”. Borisova, Cantalupo+, 2016 Sebastiano Cantalupo – SakuraCLAW - Mar 2018 14/06/2007

How do they compare with other Ly α Nebulae and “haloes”? Circularly averaged SB profile “redshift-corrected” average profile (all scaled to z=3) QSO PSF SLUG MUSE QSOs SLUG MUSE QSOs MUSE MUSE LAEs LAEs All giant quasar nebulae have similar SB profiles both at z~2 and z~3 once “redshift-corrected” Borisova, Cantalupo+, 2016 Sebastiano Cantalupo – SakuraCLAW - Mar 2018 14/06/2007

How do they compare with expectations from cosmo-simulations? RAMSES (AMR) simulation of SC+14 including Ly α RT : simulated SB (a few haloes at 10 12.5-13 M sun ) is ~10-100 fainter than observed for both recombination and “photon-pumping” (scattering from QSO BLR) Same discrepancy in EAGLE (SPH) for maximal fluorescent emission: Tresoldi, SC & Pezzulli, in prep. observed EAGLE 12.8 “ref” EAGLE 12.4 high 12.0 11.8 resolution 11.6 Comparison with FIRE, ILLUSTRIS-TNG and reassessment of ILLUSTRIS (see Gronke & Bird 2017) in progress. High densities in CGM/IGM are needed and unresolved by cosmo-sims. Sebastiano Cantalupo – SakuraCLAW - Mar 2018 14/06/2007

Constraining the densities and emission mechanism with HeII 1640: NB (Ly 𝛃 ) c Sebastiano Cantalupo – SakuraCLAW - Mar 2018 14/06/2007

Extended HeII emission from the Slug Nebula continuum subtracted cube + CubEx v1.6 12 6 4 2 150kpc 2 σ ~3x10 -19 c cgs/arcsec 2 10A ~ 600km/s Cantalupo+, in prep. Sebastiano Cantalupo – SakuraCLAW - Mar 2018 14/06/2007

Why is HeII “missing” from the Slug “tail”? 1) “Tail” Ly α emission due to “photon-pumping / scattering” ruled out by MOSFIRE H α (and preliminary MUSE CIII) detection “tail” Ly α spectrum “tail” Ly α /H α ~5-8 qso b consistent with Case B Recombination H α spectrum Leibler, Cantalupo+, MNRAS submitted Sebastiano Cantalupo – SakuraCLAW - Mar 2018 14/06/2007

Why is HeII “missing” from the Slug “tail”? High densities required HeII/Ly α 2) High densities and larger distances c ~0.08 Expected HeII/Ly α ratio 0 -0.5 (a) -1 log (HeII/Ly α ) tail -1.5 tail -2 <0.006! -2.5 D = 50 kpc “single-density” D = 160 kpc clump scenario -3 D = 350 kpc D = 1 Mpc -3.5 -1 0 1 2 3 4 log(nH/cm -3 ) (a) n clump ~10 2 -10 4 cc ! (depending on <n>=0.01 actual distance) 0.1 (b) (b) 0.2 density PDF σ =2.9 0.5 HeII/Ly α <n>=0.01 c D=1Mpc σ =2.9 log(PDF) “turbulent/lognormal density distribution” tail scenario SB(Ly α ) log(n/cc) Cantalupo+, in prep. Sebastiano Cantalupo – SakuraCLAW - Mar 2018 14/06/2007

Open Questions and (some) Future Directions What sets the frequency , size and luminosity of the giant quasar Nebulae? (quasar lifetime, opening angle, halo mass, redshift, quasar luminosity,…) What is the origin of the IGM/CGM clumps traced by the Nebulae? (thermal/gravitational instabilities, quasar radiation effects,…) How this affects galaxy and QSO formation? (fast gas accretion, violent disk instability,…) Exploring a larger parameter space: - include lower luminosity quasars; - extend the redshift range to 2<z<3 (not possible with MUSE, KCWI required) - Ηα followup to constrain emission mechanism and “spatially resolve” clumps. Improving our theoretical understanding of IGM “clump-formation”: - hydrodynamical and thermal stability analysis; - detailed comparison with observational data. Moving “away” from quasars: - detect “average” Cosmic Web filaments connecting galaxies and illuminated by the cosmic UVB (>100h-deep exposure with MUSE and/or KCWI). Sebastiano Cantalupo – SakuraCLAW - Mar 2018 14/06/2007

KCWI (ongoing) snapshot survey of bright quasars at z~2.3 Targets: >10 of the brightest quasars at z~2.3 (including QSOs previously observed with NB imaging with no detectable nebulae) Preliminary results: ~100% detection rate under QSO PSF but lower SB than z~3 MUSE Quasar Nebulae (to be confirmed) —> possible redshift evolution pseudo-NB, pseudo-NB QSO PSF subtracted Cantalupo+, in prep. Sebastiano Cantalupo – SakuraCLAW - Mar 2018 14/06/2007

Where are the “clumps” coming from? Instabilities from filament accretion: - RAMSES 2D simulation (resolution ~5pc) of “cold” filaments flowing through hot gas and initially small (5%) pressure perturbation at the interface. subsonic case, adiabatic supersonic case, adiabatic Mb=2.1 lambda = 2 Rs MOVIE MOVIE Vossberg, Cantalupo & Pezzulli, in prep. (see also Mandelker et al. 2016) Sebastiano Cantalupo – SakuraCLAW - Mar 2018 14/06/2007

Where are the “clumps” coming from? Instabilities from filament accretion: - RAMSES 2D simulation (resolution ~5pc) of “cold” filaments flowing through hot gas and initially small (5%) pressure perturbation at the interface. ~sonic case, adiabatic MOVIE Vossberg, Cantalupo & Pezzulli, in prep. (see also Mandelker et al. 2016) Sebastiano Cantalupo – SakuraCLAW - Mar 2018 14/06/2007